{"id":88271,"date":"2010-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-27T19:33:23","modified_gmt":"2017-07-27T14:03:23","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOT.Rev.No. 7 of 2009()\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S. VEENUS TRADERS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :29\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                                                               C.R.\n                  C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &\n                         P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.\n                  --------------------------------------------\n                     O.T. Rev. No. 7& 12 OF 2009\n                  --------------------------------------------\n                Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Connected revision cases, one filed by the State and the other<\/p>\n
filed by the assessee, pertain to assessment of the assessee for the<\/p>\n
assessment year 2005-06. We have heard counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
assessee and Government Pleader for the State.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The assessee was engaged in purchase, processing, packing<\/p>\n
and sale of cashew kernels. During inspection conducted on 27.9.2005,<\/p>\n
stock variation noticed was 3626 Kgs. The offence was compounded<\/p>\n
by collecting compounding fee of Rs. 5,000\/-. There is a controversy<\/p>\n
as to how the price was estimated for the suppressed quantity for the<\/p>\n
purpose of collecting compounding fee of Rs. 5,000\/-. According to<\/p>\n
the statement of the Tribunal, compounding fee was collected by fixing<\/p>\n
the price of cashew kernel at Rs. 7 per Kg. whereas the assessee’s<\/p>\n
counsel contended that the price fixed was at the rate of Rs.10 per Kg.<\/p>\n
O.T.RV.7&12\/09<\/p>\n
In any case, we do not think there is any need for us to go into this<\/p>\n
issue because compounding is not the dispute raised in these revisions.<\/p>\n
In fact, suppression in quantity was admitted by the assessee and<\/p>\n
compounding fee was paid after inspection.           In the course of<\/p>\n
assessment, the assessing officer found that the assessee was engaged<\/p>\n
in undervaluation as well because sale price accounted was much<\/p>\n
below the actual sale price. The assessing officer verified the details of<\/p>\n
10 tins of cashew kernels sold to one Bombay party and found that the<\/p>\n
actual sale price realised was Rs. 59.62 per Kg. and therefore actual<\/p>\n
sale price was applied for estimating suppressed turnover. It is also to<\/p>\n
be noted that receipt of unaccounted sale proceeds through bank<\/p>\n
account was also detected and even though the assessee tried to explain<\/p>\n
that credit in the bank represented amount received from his daughter<\/p>\n
and son in the middle-east, he could not prove the same. In other<\/p>\n
words, it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee was engaged not<\/p>\n
only in quantum suppression but also in undervaluation as well.<\/p>\n
Rejection of books of accounts and estimation of turnover were<\/p>\n
confirmed in first appeal. However, the first appellate authority refixed<\/p>\n
O.T.RV.7&12\/09<\/p>\n
the suppression at four times the stock variation in quantity and<\/p>\n
directed to apply the value for 50% of the quantity at the rate estimated<\/p>\n
by the assessing officer and for the balance quantity the first appellate<\/p>\n
authority directed acceptance of the sale price returned by the assessee.<\/p>\n
When further appeal was filed to the Tribunal, the Tribunal changed<\/p>\n
the pattern of addition and fixed it at Rs.3 lakhs. So far as purchase<\/p>\n
turnover is concerned, the Tribunal directed the assessing officer to<\/p>\n
grant rebate under Rule 38(5) on 80% of the purchases under Section 6<\/p>\n
(2) of the Act. State has filed revision challenging the relief granted by<\/p>\n
the Tribunal. Assessee has filed revision contending that once the<\/p>\n
offence is compounded under Section 74(1) no further addition in<\/p>\n
assessment is called for under Section 74(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n
      3. On facts there is no controversy inasmuch as assessee itself<\/p>\n
does not canvass for acceptance of books of accounts and the return<\/p>\n
filed even though assessee has a case that after compounding no<\/p>\n
estimation is permissible in assessment under Section 74(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n
In other words, if Section 74(2) assessment is permissible by rejection<\/p>\n
of books of accounts and by estimation of turnover because of the<\/p>\n
O.T.RV.7&12\/09<\/p>\n
compounding, then assessee cannot dispute rejection of books of<\/p>\n
accounts and estimation of turnover. What is stated in Section 74(2)<\/p>\n
before amendment was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           On payment of such amount under sub-section (1), no
\n           further proceedings shall be taken against such person, in
\n           respect of that offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By Amendment Act 22\/2006 with effect from 1;.7.2006, Section 74(1)<\/p>\n
stands amended as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           On payment of such amount under sub-section (1) no
\n           further penal or prosecution proceedings shall be taken
\n           against such person, in respect of that offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According to counsel for the assessee, prior to amendment, Section 74<\/p>\n
(2) prohibited assessment also on estimation basis based on<\/p>\n
compounding done. His further contention is that it is only after the<\/p>\n
amendment, further action, which is prohibited under Section 74(2)<\/p>\n
after compounding, was limited to penal and prosecution proceedings.<\/p>\n
In other words, until amendment to Section 74(2) the above said sub-<\/p>\n
section prohibited even any addition in assessment based on<\/p>\n
O.T.RV.7&12\/09<\/p>\n
compounding. Government Pleader on the other hand contended that<\/p>\n
Section 74(2) does not speak about assessment and speaks about penal<\/p>\n
and prosecution proceedings. We are unable to accept the assessee’s<\/p>\n
contention because in the first place Section 74 providing for<\/p>\n
composition of offence falls under Chapter VIII which deals with<\/p>\n
offences and penalties, whereas the provisions for assessment are<\/p>\n
covered by Chapter V. Further in the Budget Speech introducing the<\/p>\n
amendment it is specifically clarified that Section 74(2) does not refer<\/p>\n
to assessment and amendment is only clarificatory.          What was<\/p>\n
prohibited after compounding under Section 74(2) even before<\/p>\n
amendment is further proceedings that could be taken against a dealer<\/p>\n
which obviously means proceedings further to detection of offence that<\/p>\n
led to composition. Assessment of the dealer is indispensable under<\/p>\n
the Act irrespective of whether the dealer is involved in any offence or<\/p>\n
not.   Therefore further proceedings referred to in Section 74(2)<\/p>\n
pursuant to detection of offence and compounding thereafter cannot<\/p>\n
refer to assessment proceedings which are permissible as provided<\/p>\n
under Chapter V. We therefore hold that even prior to the amendment,<\/p>\n
O.T.RV.7&12\/09<\/p>\n
prohibition contained in Section 74(2) does not deal with assessment at<\/p>\n
all. So much so, rejection of books of accounts based on compounding<\/p>\n
of offence by the assessee was perfectly justified.<\/p>\n
      4. Since the assessee has conceded that books of accounts were<\/p>\n
not properly maintained and offence was compounded, assessee cannot<\/p>\n
obviously canvass for the correctness of books of accounts. So far as<\/p>\n
the challenge against the value adopted for assessment is concerned, we<\/p>\n
feel the value fixed for the purpose of compounding at Rs. 7 per Kg. or<\/p>\n
Rs. 10 per Kg. for cashew kernel is not binding on the Assessing<\/p>\n
Officer. In this case, the assessing officer found from the assessee’s<\/p>\n
own records show that average sale price for sales made to one<\/p>\n
Bombay party was Rs.59.62. In fact Cashew Development Corporation<\/p>\n
has confirmed to the department that the average market price during<\/p>\n
the year was ranging from Rs. 46 to Rs.115\/-. Even though counsel for<\/p>\n
the assessee contended that the said communication was issued in<\/p>\n
2007, we do not think the date furnished can be ignored particularly<\/p>\n
when the same is corroborated with actual sale figures of assessee’s<\/p>\n
sales to Bombay party. Even though the average sale price of cashew<\/p>\n
O.T.RV.7&12\/09<\/p>\n
kernel based on the data of Cashew Development Corporation is<\/p>\n
around Rs. 80\/-, the average price adopted by the Officer from actual<\/p>\n
sales made by the assessee during the relevant period is much below<\/p>\n
the same. We are of the view that the first appellate authority as well<\/p>\n
as the Tribunal are not justified in deviating from the actual sale figures<\/p>\n
adopted by the assessing officer from the assessee’s own records which<\/p>\n
also stand proved with the data furnished by the Cashew Development<\/p>\n
Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The next question pertains to challenge against pattern of<\/p>\n
addition sustained by the Tribunal. The suppression estimated by the<\/p>\n
Officer at 12 times the actual suppression detected on one inspection<\/p>\n
was above Rs. 25 lakhs. This was in fact reduced to around one third<\/p>\n
by the first appellate authority at Rs. 8,54,728.48. There is nothing to<\/p>\n
indicate from the Tribunal’s order the basis of their estimation of<\/p>\n
suppressed turnover at Rs. 3 lakhs. Since we find no basis for the<\/p>\n
Tribunal to change the pattern of addition, we feel four times the<\/p>\n
quantity of suppression adopted by the first appellate authority is<\/p>\n
perfectly in order, and we do not want to disturb the discretionary<\/p>\n
O.T.RV.7&12\/09<\/p>\n
power exercised by him. However, four times the addition should be<\/p>\n
on the quantity of suppression and the valuation of the suppressed<\/p>\n
quantity should be uniformly adopted at the rate of Rs. 59.62 per Kg.<\/p>\n
      6. We do not think it is a fit case to consider the question raised<\/p>\n
by the State whether Rule 38(5) will apply retrospectively because in<\/p>\n
this case having regard to the modified additions sustained by us we do<\/p>\n
not want to disturb the finding of the Tribunal on purchase tax<\/p>\n
assessment. We direct the assessing officer to follow the Tribunal’s<\/p>\n
order on this issue with the modification of the turnover as fixed above.<\/p>\n
      Tax Revision case filed by the assessee is dismissed and Tax<\/p>\n
Revision Case filed by the State is partly allowed by modifying the<\/p>\n
Tribunal’s order as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
\n                                                      Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                               (P.S. GOPINATHAN)
\n                                                       Judge.\n<\/p>\n
kk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court State Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OT.Rev.No. 7 of 2009() 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S. VEENUS TRADERS, … Respondent For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-27T14:03:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs M\\\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-27T14:03:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1459,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs M\\\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-27T14:03:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs M\\\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-27T14:03:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-27T14:03:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010"},"wordCount":1459,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010","name":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-27T14:03:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-ms-veenus-traders-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs M\/S. Veenus Traders on 29 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88271","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=88271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88271\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}